Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

Monday, May 21, 2007

A number of studies have been published in recent years, some of them pretty well designed, that have suggested that there is a causal link between religiousness and longevity, happiness, social satisfaction, health, longer and more stable marriages, charity, being moral, honesty, integrity, mental health, and so on. All of these studies need to be considered carefully in their own right, but I am not going to discuss any of them directly here.

Predictably, non-believers have been very quick to criticize and reject the findings. “The study was poorly designed,” “Praying is good for you because it has an stress relieving effect like meditation, not because God is listening,” “It’s the social contact of regular church attendance that is good for people’s health and happiness, not contact with God,” and “A longer and more stable marriage isn’t a good thing if both partners are miserable and they have 12 kids because the Pope said birth control isn’t allowed,” are typical of the comments. And some of them may be right. But let’s consider another possibility without criticizing the studies.

What if they are right?

What if it turns out that even though religion is a complete myth, humans are actually better off by any reasonable standard if they believe and practice than if they don’t? Such a scenario is plausible, and in theory it could be empirically verified. That’s what all of these studies are trying to do. If they succeed, then the atheist who prides himself in holding science, evidence, and truth above all other priorities will have to put his money where his mouth is.

So if it turns out that being religious really is good for us, then what?

The possibility presents a much deeper and more profound challenge to the non-believer who wants to wage the God fight. Non-believers will point out, correctly, that even if all of those claims about the positive benefits of believing are accurate, none of those results show that God exists. Beneficial doesn’t equal true. And there are even lots of believers who would concede the point that God’s existence can’t be proven.

But if that point is granted, then what exactly is the non-believer striving to achieve? Is it better for us overall to believe something true, but demonstrably bad for our lives, happiness, and longevity? Except for the rare philosopher among us, I think most people when pressed on the issue would conclude that truth is ultimately of instrumental value, and if it turns out that a falsehood serves our interests better in the big picture, then truth becomes a lesser priority. And if that is right, then the non-believer who wants to fight this fight, who wants to convince people to believe otherwise just doesn’t have a leg to stand on. And this non-believer really needs to ask herself or himself just what it is that they are trying to accomplish?

The atheist should be prepared to admit, if it turns out to be well supported by the evidence, that it might be better for us all to keep believer. Sure, the whole God business is false, it’s a fairy tale, and so on. But if it turns out that believing this particular truth instead of the happy myth makes us more unhappy, less mentally healthy, less charitable, less kind, less compassionate, die sooner, have worse health, and have weaker social ties, then it’s not at all clear that we should all abandon the myth and that Dawkins and the like have our best interests in mind. It may turn out that humans really are better off believing a deception and we’re worse off it we mess with that.

So here’s a reality check for the atheist: If we really mean it that the evidence, reason, and truth are what’s most important, then we need to be prepared to admit that the evidence could in fact show that we are all better off being religious. And if that is true, then we need to think long and hard about the kind of world we are trying to achieve with our arguments.

Interesting topic. I think there is probably a decent case for the existence of a divide between what is important from a philosophical standpoint and what is important from a practical (social, political, etc.) standpoint. But I think that this will naturally induce a divide between the types of atheists that you might be addressing in your post.

An atheist that is interested purely in philosophical issues might not be so much concerned with the differences in quality of life between theists and nontheists. On the other hand, an atheist interested in advocating atheism as part of a broader social (political, etc.) cause might need to take these issues into more serious consideration. If they are interested in more than simply the truth or falsity of religious claims--such as the impacts of nonbelief on individuals and larger communities--then they might want to revise their approach. If it turns out that there is a measurable, substantial causal link between religiousness and quality of life (and it seems like this is still a big "if"), then they might, for example, focus on eliminating effects of religious behavior (such as intermingling of church and state, etc.) rather than trying to eliminate religious belief.

At the same time, it seems like the facets of quality of life that you mentioned in your post might be significantly outweighed by the negative effects of religious belief. (Crudely: I will take a hundred failed marriages over one religiously-driven suicide bombing.) These would need to be compared in order to reach a more definite conclusion.

If it were the case that we could only choose between flourishing in ignorance or being miserable in the pursuit or knowledge of truth, then obviously we would remain either stupid or unhappy. Either one is not a goal that mankind should have to strive for or choose between in order to be of true success or proud achievment.

Thanks Steve, Kevin, John, and Jon for your thoughtful comments. There are lots of good issues here.

Here's a couple of ideas. I think that science and naturalism just aren't up to the task of replacing or offering up some alternative that will do the work religion is currently doing in people's lives. Science and naturalism give us an impersonal picture of the world, whereas what people crave and what religion provides (at least western monotheism) is a personal contact with some grand supernatural force. God is a person who cares, loves, judges, watches over, etc. And no matter how exciting or awe inspiring scientific discoveries are, no matter how beautiful pictures from the Hubble telescope are, science just isn't in the business of producing the right kind of warm personal fuzzies for people. I'm fond of Sartrean Existentialism too, Steve, but nobody ever suggested that it was personal, warm, or optimistic. One could argue that it's really a non-answer to the God urge we have. And Kevin, it sounds like you are just telling them all to suck it up and appreciate the truth. That right, they should. But the truth is cold, objective, and uncaring--the universe just doesn't care about our existence (that's the first premise in Sartre's argument.) Pursuing atheism as a sort of social movement is an interesting idea, but what exactly are the goals and the motivation? To make people unhappy and deprive them of the (false) beliefs that they find most fulfilling? That seems perverse, even if it is the truth.

"The atheist should be prepared to admit, if it turns out to be well supported by the evidence, that it might be better for us all to keep believer. Sure, the whole God business is false, it’s a fairy tale, and so on. But if it turns out that believing this particular truth instead of the happy myth makes us more unhappy, less mentally healthy, less charitable, less kind, less compassionate, die sooner, have worse health, and have weaker social ties, then it’s not at all clear that we should all abandon the myth and that Dawkins and the like have our best interests in mind. It may turn out that humans really are better off believing a deception and we’re worse off it we mess with that."

--this is very interesting to me. Wouldn't this be a case that's considered cognitive dissonance, believing something to be bad but going along with it anyway?

With that said, you are compromising your beliefs if you buy into that mindset. If being religious and believing in God is going to make you more charitable, healthier, more compassionate, etc., then that's a character deficiency issue and has nothing to do with God.

The cliche about religion and God is that it's a crutch for people. So if you believe religion is a myth but go along with it anyway because it yields positive effects in your life, what does that say about the individual? So then wouldn't religion be a crutch for the atheist as well? Or are you trying to say that the atheist would be OK with this, since the results are there? Do these results really have to do with God, or do they say something about the character of the individual, that the individual is too weak to be happy, friendly, communal, healthy on her own, without the help of a myth? It still, always, comes down to the individual, in seemingly all circumstances. So if you want to be happy, healthy and a vital part of your community, you can still do this, no matter what you believe in. Perhaps more people are able to be like this with the help that they get from some feeling that stems from religion, but we don't have to be sheep and follow the results. You could bet 1 million on double zero in roulette and win twice in a row, but regardless, it's still a bad bet if you try for a third time.

My $.02: Don't follow results. It's the process that matters. Be a strong person and be happy and mentally healthy and compassionate on your own, without the help of anything external to you- God, religion, whatever.

I think we need to clarify what religion really does for people, and then we can consider whether atheism, or some other system, can OR should attempt to replace it.

First, I want to make it clear that relgion can be replaced with something similar but more healthy and truthful.

What does religion do for people?

(1) It gives them a way to understand their existence and thus provides meaning (and truth) for them. It provides a kind of intellectual comfort. "I am here because of this."

(2) It gives them emotional comfort. Knowing why you exist is one thing, but people want to know that they are being "looked" after in some sense by a greater "power." This also applies to "life after death" -- people don't want to fear death and feel sad about losing loved ones.

(3) It also makes them feel part of something bigger and "better" than themselves. Humans are social animals and have to be part of something larger than mere individual accomplishments. The individual side is part of life, but it's not everything. We also like being a part of family, friends, culture, and so on. "God" and religion provide the largest and most powerful manifestation of this social urge.

I'm sure there are others, but I think these three are the biggest:

(1) The desire for objective meaning and truth.

(2) The desire for emotional safety and physical (and "spiritual") protection from something larger than ourselves.

I think (3) is something lacking for humans. That is, we have plenty of ideals and groups to be a part of on a local basis, but what IS (if anything) an ultimate ideal group for human beings globally/universally?

I think (3) is the biggest challenge. However, I think science and philosophy can combine to provide the answers here. After all, it appears that life in the universe, at least on the level of civilization, is pretty rare (and even if it weren't rare, life is still a pretty amazing natural phenomenon) -- why doesn't that provide a "special" basis for humans to come together on?

I'm really glad you asked this question, because honestly, I don't think I ever gave the idea any thought.

I think I'll have to write an entire article of my own to adequately respond (and when I do I'll send you a link), but in a nutshell the following things came to mind:

So if it turns out that being religious really is good for us, then what?

Well, while there is debate over the quality of the conclusions those studies suggest, there is enough information out there to infer quite a few other things... namely, that the odds of this being correct are not good enough to bet on.

You're essentially positing religion as a giant placebo. Well, there are a lot of studies on the placebo effect. Just as there are medicines that work better than placebo, there are other things in life that can be more beneficial than religion. The odds are not likely at all that religion's placebo effect is singular and unique among the things we can experience.

Also, there's the dilemma of disbelief itself. Disregarding what I said above, religion only has its assuaging powers when people believe in them. Atheists cannot will themselves to benefit from religion when they are aware that it is not true.

Thus, you can only cross the line from belief into disbelief, and the question is not whether we should keep dragging people across the line... it's whether we are obligated to keeping others from crossing on their own.

Thinking rationally about such a dilemma, the only moral thing to do would be to swear atheists to secrecy, and to ask atheists to shoulder the burden of maintaining belief in the masses. We would literally become the shepherds to the flock. Ergo, atheists would be destined to become the new clergy.

Certainly it is possible that believing some falsehoods may have positive effects in the short run - and as Keynes remarked, in the long run we all dead. But once you adopt this utilitarian standard the question becomes which beliefs are most conducive to the good life. If there were a scientific study of this it might turn out that a beneficient deism or tolerant mysticism or belief in the perfectability of humans or whatever we evolve into was the optimum. But can anyone imagine that belief in a demanding, jealous, misogynist, egomanical, vengeful, supernatural despot makes for the good life?

Beliefs are not just personal. It may make some people happy to think they are going to live forever and those who disagree with them are going to be eternally tortured because of it, but who wants to live around such people?

The importance of the scientific attitude is not so much the specific beliefs but the attitude toward them - that they are uncertain and provisional.

If religiousness is so socially beneficial, why are there proportionally few atheists in prison when compared to the religious?

I think, and this is a generalization, those of us who are atheists have had a reason or two to question the nature of existence. So there might be a correlation between being an atheist and being less happy than the general public, but the cause of being less happy is likely not the atheism itself. So those studies may be right, but not for the reasons they purport.

Also, the benefits of religiousness may be good on an individual level, but bad on the larger scale. If a person sticks their head in the sand, they may be able to avoid certain stressors in life. But if the majority of people stick their heads in the sand, that really leaves room for "bad" people to get away with worse things. For conditions in general to go down hill, or at least not improve... If one slave makes problems he's going to be worse off than the general slave population, but if all the slaves revolt, they would have the chance for freedom.

Personally, even if it would make my life easier, I can't just arbitrarily decide to believe something. If I could win a million dollars for believing that 2+2=5, truely believing it, I couldn't do it. I could say I do, I could act like I do, but I would be lying. The facts are immutable. I can't throw out a lifetime of experience that's been the basis for my current condition, just because it might "make me happier". If I know it's a placebo, it won't work.

Regarding the bigger picture, what IS the purpose of life? Being an atheist, I don't believe the religious explanations for why we are here. I think the reason people came to exist is arbitrary, (beautiful and complex, but arbitrary) but that doesn't stop us from getting together and agreeing on a common goal. What is the common goal of humans, as a species? Simply to persist? Even if it's that simple, there are things we should do address problems that will arise on the really large scale. Namely, we should really put more effort into raw science. We should not all be stuck on one planet. Some day the sun will nova, and it would be good for our survival if we found someplace else to be.

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.